[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Title:	ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 2 --ARCHIVE
Notice:	V2 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:	REGENT::BROOMHEAD

Created:	Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1105
Total number of notes:	36379

754.0. "Men, Women and Morality" by DELNI::P_LEEDBERG (Memory is the second) Mon Aug 21 1989 17:13


	Yesterday I was wandering around my house looking for something
	light to read, well, I came across a book I had bought awhile 
	ago but had not read.  "Beyond Power on Women, Men and Morals" 
	by Marilyn French.  The book was published in 1985 so it has been
	around for a number of years.  After I started reading it I 
	realized that it was not "light" reading at all.  The following
	are some quotes from the introduction:

		"This book rests on the assumptions that our 
		present lack of vision as well as the present 
		condition of the world is the result of a failure
		of our morality; that it is possible for humans
		to create and live by a different morality; and
		that only by adopting a new morality can we 
		restore enough emotional, physical, and intellectual
		equilibrium to create a more felicitous society."

	This set me off in a mind tangent - as I read on I realized
	what was happening.

		"But morality is a neutral term: it has no specific
		content.  It refers to the set of values by which
		we judge, which guide our behavior and even our
		emotions.  MORALS ARE OUR REAL VALUES (emphasis mine)
		--not qualities we claim to revere, to which we 
		give lip service and not much more.... Our
		morality manifest itself in our choices -- how we
		live, to what we devote our time and money, the 
		kinds of friends we make, the way we spend our leisure,
		and above all, the kind of person we become, the
		kind of person we want to be.  The morality of a 
		society also manifests itself in its choices: how
`		much it spends on what; its language and art; its
		mode of production and what it produces; its mode
		of ordering itself and the kind of order deemed
		desirable."

	I think I have heard these discussions lately here in =wn=
	in a number of topics.  Here comes a major "click" for me.


		"Morality is a personal and communal affair; when
		it reaches the public realm, IT IS CALLED POLITICS
		(again emphasis is mine)....  Rousseau claimed that
		separating morality from politics made both disciplines
		incomprehensible....  Feminists say simply, THE
		PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL (my emphasis)."

	To respond to some replies in this file about what makes a
	person moral or not.  I think the following quote addresses
	this quite well.

		"A morality is an intermeshing set of qualities and
		conditions to which we attach varying degrees of value.
		IT IS NOT A SCALE OR GAMUT; (again emphasis is mine)
		it is a context of thought and judgment.

		"...what we value depends on our sense of what it
		means to be a human, our way of seeing ourselves.

		"The primary ground of any definition of humanness
		is nature;... people see themselves in a particular
		relation to nature."

		"The primary determinant of a morality is the way in
		which a society conceives of humanness....  the very
		notion of humanness involves an abstraction.  In
		cultures that fed into and eventually became
		Western civilization, the notion of humanness involved
		duality; humans were set in opposition to nature,
		rather than within it.  And the primary manifestation
		of the relationship between humans and nature is
		the way a society sees men and women....  most
		cultures associate women with nature..."

	So if someone does not see women/females as being human then
	the way they treat women/femals is effected.  "Kick your dog, 
	kick your woman."  

	As I see it, the problem we face is not that women need to 
	be seen as part of humanity, that would be nice, but that 
	humanity needs to be seen as part of nature, not above it 
	or beyond it.  But in it.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |

			The Earth is our Mother
			We must take care of her.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
754.1	We have met the enemy...	JAIMES::GODIN	This is the only world we have	`Mon Aug 21 1989 17:56`	44
	In regard to "...humanity needs to be seen as part of nature..." and "The Earth is our Mother. We must take care of her" as well as other concepts of morality and impulse control discussed within this conference: Eons ago I was reared in a fundamentalist Christian household where all the "thou shalts..." and "thou shalt nots..." were very clearly spelled out. There was never any doubt in my mind what my actions should be in any particular situation. God had spoken! Then I took a course in "Situational Ethics," a very radical concept, especially since it was offered at my denomination's national conference center. My life has not been the same since. Suddenly "morality" could encompass some of the "thou shalt nots" I'd been drilled in. And the action would/could STILL BE MORAL! It was mind blowing! (A phrase of that particular age; roughly translated into "Like, totally awesome, Man!") As I recall, the test for morality/immorality offered in that course was to contemplate, "If everyone on Earth did [the planned action], would the results be beneficial or not?" o If everyone on Earth were frequently spaced out on the LEGAL drug of their choice, would the result be beneficial? o If everyone on Earth were to abuse their child(ren) because they felt like it and their impulses weren't under their control, would the result be beneficial? You get the idea. Using that test, I have done some immoral things over the years. I have seen my federal government do even more immoral things (yes, that's a value judgment). My local and state communities have recently done some terribly immoral things, especially in light of the future well being of our world and its citizens. And too much of the immorality has been done in the name of MORALITY! I'm trying to improve. I'm also expecting the political bodies who "represent" me to improve. Karen
754.2	I recognize those concepts...	SKYLRK::OLSON	Partner in the Almaden Train Wreck	`Mon Aug 21 1989 18:10`	23
	Oh, Peggy, this is a wonderful topic. (You mentioned looking for "light reading" and then you mentioned "Marilyn French" and I had a moment of disequilibrium...;-). Through studies of philosophy I came to a very similar understanding of what 'morality' really means to me; your quotations were of a striking verisimilitude. I hadn't before grasped just why I had recently accepted the phrase "the personal is the political", but it is now apparent (thank you!) that it encompasses yet another perspective on what is important to me, my 'values' aka 'moral code'. OK so far- I think I fully agree with French's description of what morality really is and your emphases and discussion around that theme. I think our perspectives diverge, however, when we discuss the mistakes of Western civilization. I'm still chewing over in my mind just where our differences might lie and I can see that I need to think more about it. I'll return to this when I can do it justice. Thanks for sharing this...it sounds like a very thought-provoking book. DougO
754.3	What if everyone <....>	VINO::EVANS	I'm baa-ack	`Thu Aug 24 1989 18:57`	23
	RE: .1 A revered former principal of my high school was oft quoted as having said 'Never do that which, if everyone did it, would destroy society." This quote was used as a verbal carrot-and-stick on the students, of course. But as I got older, I began to realize that there are a hell of a lot of things that if everyone did them, would destroy society.......and if only some people do them, GREATLY ENHANCES that same society. I've also realized that the quote comes from that puritan-spawned ethic that "people are generally bad and will always give in to the baser instincts" - "baser instincts" somehow always defined by the speaker to their advantage, so they can tell you you're screwing up. To base ideas on what would happen if everyone did something is a setup for reaction to an extreme case. I guess I just come from the jock school of "no harm, no foul". --DE
754.4	another digression..	IAMOK::ALFORD	I'd rather be fishing	`Fri Aug 25 1989 12:44`	15
	re: -.1 Yep, my reaction exactly to the 'what if everyone did it' scenario. I mean, if everyone were software engineers, who would drive the buses, pilot the planes, create the music, paint the pictures, etc, etc. so, by rights then, being a software engineer is 'immoral'...???? hardly... Morality IS personal...as said before, if it becomes a public issue, then it turns into politics...and is no longer morality at all! just my opinion of course... deb
754.5	A paradox	MAY20::MINOW	Pere Ubu is coming soon, are you ready?	`Tue Aug 29 1989 18:15`	13
	re: .3: For another perspective on this, read "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Gregory Bateson (available in paperback). His thesis is that, if a common plot of land can support 100 cattle, and ten farmers each graze ten cattle, then a farmer who adds one cow to the common plot will personally realize a profit, but all of the framers, together, will realize a loss. You can see the process taking place around you any day. Martin.